November 22, 2011

"I'm so disgusted by that that something horrible is going to come . . . I, I, am I alone here? Am I over-reacting? I'm sickened by that... Who is this man? Who does he think he is? And why is he surging in the polls? I don't get it. I mean to hear Newt Gingrich standing on literally his high horse, after taking advantage of the system, cashing in, being the biggest, literally the biggest hypocrite in the Repubican field, probably in politics today. The biggest hypocrite.... It's disgusting. It's absolutely disgusting. It's a very angry way to start the show. I'm extremely sorry. But it's the first time I'd seen that. And it literally made my skin crawl."

"Brzezinski began her rant by declaring "it shouldn't be surprising, coming from me." That was presumably an allusion to her frankly acknowledged personal animus toward Gingrich, apparently stemming from an incident in which Newt had insulted Mika's father Zbigniew Brzezinski as Jimmy Carter's former National Security Adviser sat in the audience."

Isn't it wonderful to know that she has her job because of her ability and not because of her father was a big cheese in government. Just as disgusting in my view.

Although you aren't supposed to tolerate hypocrites or Republicans, so tolerance has its limits.

If you are a Democrat, by definition you cannot be a hypocrite, either because you espouse no standards at all, or because you espouse and legislate standards popular to the left, even while violating them.

Which isn't real hypocrisy, as that can only exist on the right. Again, by definition, and as seen here, in practice.

Mika is inconsequential. What is not, however, is the fact that someone who was forced to step down as Speaker of the House, is once again trying for the White House. If you don't think that won't come up from an Obama campaign that's got nothing BUT negativity to run on, you're either an OWS survivor or a prospective swampland purchaser.

I find the segment quite interesting. She expressed outrage over a video that has been travelling around conservative blogs winning praise and high fives. Her guests did not seem to disagree at all with her assessment.

Is there any middle ground at all? Can Newt's comments be observed as possibly having merit in some way, at least from some points of view? I'd have thought so, but Brzezinski is convinced that it's impossible.

She is as perplexed as I: "And why is he surging in the polls? I don't get it." I can disliking Newt and what he said, but I'm amazed that someone paid to analyze and disseminate news is so frankly unable to do so herself.

Newt is a very polarizing figure, still. He was the most loathed politician in America in the late 90s, and has strong detractors not just in the liberal camp, but with independents that see him as the poster boy of K Street corruption that spawned Tom DeLay, Hastert, and Obama's donors. Even Republicans are split on him. (Half think he is an idea a minute genius...the other half believes him an ineffective, self-indulgent blowhard that was justly ousted as Speaker by the Republicans)

Half think he is an idea a minute genius...the other half believes him an ineffective, self-indulgent blowhard that was justly ousted as Speaker by the Republicans

It is possible to be both simultaneously, isn't it? Ineffective and genius aren't mutually exclusive. On a serious note, though, listening to Brit Hume running down the laundry listen of Newt negatives (lol) just reinforced my opinion that the guy is nigh unelectable...in any election but this one.

And did you catch the bit where she whines that it's terrible of Newt to tell them to go get jobs because there are no jobs? There are plenty of JOBS, Mika (and, honestly, what knid of name is that? Is it short for something?) - the problem is that your little OWS slime want a big bucks job that lets them surf the net all day, engage in unlimited personal calls and knock off at 2.00pm after a hard day's work. No, those "jobs" aren't there. But if anyone of them washed up, put on some clean clothes and spent a day answering want ads, they'd find a job.

I will not deny that there is a lot of hypocrisy that clings to Newt Gingrich like an ill-fitting brassiere. Zbig's daughter should get over it though -- and if she makes a claim, she should back it up with facts, not ranting.

What Newt did is a part of the problem with Washington and is not a credit to him. But how many of us would have passed on the opportunity to make millions if we were presented with it, an opportunity requiring no law breaking? Few I suspect.

Newt is not a political virgin, but there are many good aspects to him and his philosophy of government. I personally think he is the best of the lot, such as it is. I don't think George Washington will run.

If we are going to elect an experienced politician, and I think we need one, we are not going to get a political virgin.

I am really not sure how discredited, etc., Newt was as speaker. They did to him what they tried later with Gov. Palin, but at a much higher level - filing some hundred or so ethics complaints against him, with all but one being dismissed, and that one not really admitted, just consented to.

And the reason for the ethics attack? First, Gingrich had used (real) ethics complaints to bring down one of his predecessors as Speaker. And, his Contract with America won the House for the Republicans for the first time in maybe 40 years, and won it big enough that they were able to hold it for 12, which they hadn't done since before FDR.

I am not saying that he is ethically clean, but rather, is, I would guess, about average for anyone who has spent as much time around Washington, D.C. or in national politics. Probably cleaner than John Kerry and Al Gore, and much cleaner than either of the Clintons, the present occupant of the White House, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. But likely less clean than any of the other Republican nominees. (and, no, Democrats do not have a corner on corruption - it is just that they are the ones yelling corruption, yet tolerate far worse from their own politicians).

It's a testament to logic of voting for Obama that Newt even has a chance and is leading in the polls.

Although I love a lot of what Newt says, he has a way of saying it that just pisses people off. The base loves that, but the squishy middle people are easily persuaded by such optics as sounding mean. Unfortunately, the election is all about pushing those squishy invertebrates into your cup.

Oh, and when I mentioned Democratic corruption, I forgot to mention former Dem. Senator, governor, and Obama economic advisor Jon Corzine, whose company appears now to maybe have misappropriated $1.2 billion (up from $600 million) of customer money. This is getting up into the Berney Madoff level of theft.

Bruce Hayden said...I am really not sure how discredited, etc., Newt was as speaker. They did to him what they tried later with Gov. Palin,===========The problem with that thinking is that "They!" are not the nefarious forces of the mainstream media that cast Palin as not ready for primetime...but with Newt "They!" happened to be his fellow Republicans that found him to be an incompetent, polarizing leader, executive, and administrator.

The media did not sway Republicans to purge Newt...Newt swayed Republicans to purge Newt with his antics.

(Remember too that once Newt had power, he promptly went to sabotaging key parts of his own Contract With America. Term limits, pork constraints? "That is so yesterday. I now have 4 Great New Ideas! Just thought of them this month! Forget that term limits and anti-pork stuff. We are running the show now."

bagoh20 says "Although I love a lot of what Newt says, he has a way of saying it that just pisses people off." There are lots of reasons for this, like the Professorial arrogance noted above, the hypocrisy, and the dissembling over his profiteering with Freddie Mac.

But Newt has a way of saying it that just pisses people off. I submit that the primary reason is that he has a high and rather whiny voice. We have not had a POTUS with a voice that high since Kennedy, and his voice had a richness that tended to negate its high pitch. Before Kennedy, Presidents spoke to us mostly through low-fidelity radios that did not transmit voice quality very well, so that quality was not a major factor.

It's a devastating image problem. If Newt's voice-- just the pitch and tone-- were more like that of John Kerry, I'd say he might stand a chance. As it is, up against Obama's beautiful voice, no.

The other reason that I think the left goes berserko with Gingrich is that he makes them look like fools. And, this would clearly include President Obama, should Gingrich get the nomination. He is a very bright, articulate, man, who has spent 30 years or so learning how to be very good on his feet and win debates.

Apparently, maybe 30 years ago, before he went into politics, he had a short meeting with a pre-Presidential Ronald Reagan. And Gingrich asked Reagan how he was so good. He showed Newt a stack of index cards with discussion topics. Reagan would pick maybe 5 of them, almost at random, for a speech, then shuffle them. That always put him on edge, adding an element of suspense or danger to his speeches.

Gingrich has tried to follow this for the 30 years since he got this tip. He is smarter and better read than Reagan was, but doesn't have the film schooled voice or delivery.

I predict that if Gingrich were nominated, he would make short work of President Obama. Obama has the schooled voice, but little else that Reagan had. And, most importantly, he hasn't taken the time and effort to learn to debate well on his feet or to learn the subject matter that well - or at least not at the level that Gingrich would and does. All that takes a lot more time and energy than President Obama has every been willing to commit to anything, except, maybe, his golf game.

Chrisin MA - "And did you catch the bit where she whines that it's terrible of Newt to tell them to go get jobs because there are no jobs? There are plenty of JOBS, Mika (and, honestly, what knid of name is that? Is it short for something?)"==============1. Mika, and the name Mika, is of Polish and Czech ancestry. It is a rather nice 1st name for a girl, IMO.

The effective unemployment rate is 20%, including people that have given up looking for a job and are not included in the official stats. In some cities, the jobless rate for young black males between 18 and 30 is pushing 50%. That is social dynamite.

2. With free trade with China, and other major jobs creation woes (no more bubbles, world suffering serious production overcapacity and a race to the lowest cost bidder of 3rd world labor) - no one but the smuggest old conservatives are arguing that there are "plenty of jobs". Certainly not at a decent wage, or jobs that offer health insurance with the position.

I would agree that Gingrich's delivery is a big reason that even many of those who agree with him tend to dislike the way he speaks. It is maybe is professorial way he speaks down to everyone (and, yes, Obama has this too, and, yes, maybe from the short time he too spent at the front of classrooms - but I think Gingrich is worse here).

Thinking about the way that Gingrich delivers his message, I think that he makes a far better attack dog than he would a President. Imagine listening to State of the Union messages for a President Gingrich. I think that we would get fed up with the way that he speaks down to everyone within the first couple of months of his Presidency, and it would go downhill from there. And being Newt, he wouldn't not speak, if given half a chance, which he would have plenty of as President.

This is another reason that Romney would make the better President - he looks, acts, and sounds Presidential. Much more so than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania.

So, maybe the best ticket would be Romney/Gingrich, except that I don't see Newt settling for a supporting role.

She's either at the forefront of a new version of English, heavily influenced by the internet and the constant barrage polemics we see in all walks of life now, a kind of Chaucer for postmodernism, or I am literally pissed off that someone could get paid to speak that poorly and it is not myself.

Newt would be nobody's first choice to play Santa at the orphanage's Christmas party. I can't understand how the left is able to gin up so much hatred for such essentially likable people as Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, but Gingrich really is a load. He's the very opposite of teflon. He's the Pampers politician, totally absorbent of all the crap that's flung his way.....I agree with many of the things Newt says, but he always looks too pleased with his intellect and insights. Telling the OWS gang to take a bath is like telling Newt to take off a few pounds. The criticism is too obvious and appears more mean spirited than trenchant ....I think we should all be grateful that Mika's father blessed her with a two syllable first name. Who among us can spell the father's name without first looking it up? I think we all have better things in life to do than spell Zbiggie's name correctly, and he spared us this pointless labor when he named his daughter.

The image is very interesting, in a way perhaps not intended by the OWS. The woman, who represents the arts, dances on the back of the mighty bull of capitalism. The bull must support her dancing, because she is inconsequential as air, and she hates him for it.

". . .no one but the smuggest old conservatives are arguing that there are 'plenty of jobs.' Certainly not at a decent wage or jobs that offer health insurance with the position."

So there aren't plenty of jobs until there are plenty of jobs, just ones the spoiled OWS brats won't take.

Here's this smug old conservative's position. Take. A. Job. Even if it sucks ("that's why it's caled 'work,' not 'fun'" as my old granddaddy used to say). Take two. Or three if you have to. Work hard. Get there early. Stay late. Have an ethic. Make yourself useful. Make yourself needed. Then shed the more onerous jobs as the one where your hard work brings promotion becomes more profitable.

Please nominate Newt...then he will go down in history as having contributed to reelecting two Democratic presidents.

Sure he will. If Newt helped re-elect Willie, it was by instituting welfare reform and a balanced budget over the former Serial Rapist In Chief's objections and dragging him into it kicking and screaming.

Note, please, that the Lefties always take this tack with someone they're trying to slime because they're that afraid of them.

"machine", if that Krugman quote wasn't in the Times, I'll assume it's fake, per the genius Nobel laureate's instructions.

Other smart things Krugman has said: Our reaction to 9-11 was shameful; social security is a Ponzi scheme (1996)and that it's not (2011); that Obama's second year in office proves that "cutting spending" (?!!) doesn't create jobs; and that the one thing we need to turn the economy around is an invasion from outer space.

I'm detecting a theme against concern trolls and liberals: Please do us a favor and nominate Newt.

So lets get it straight. America doesn't need to create jobs. There is no jobs problem.It just needs those punks and indolent old white workers in places like industrially dead Buffalo to get off their asses and find all the great jobs out there begging to be filled.

No, there's a huge jobs problem. It also goes hand-in-hand with the huge lazy-ass whiner problem.

While I don't see things from a woman's point of view, owing in large part to my own external plumbing, I cannot, for the life of me, imagine going a year, let alone two years, on unemployment. My sense of responsibility as a husband and father would kick in and I'd got get myself one of those crappy jobs. I'd lay good odds I'd be one of their supervisors within a couple of months as well.

Cultivating excellent work ethics is not something we excel at in this society.

Which is not what I said, you jackhole. What I am saying is that poor little Mika has her thong all damp and twisty because there are supposedly no jobs anywhere for anyone, which is simply a lie.

Unemployment is a huge problem, as is this administration's deliberate jobs-destroying "green" agenda, and you can bet your swastika that if Obama was a Republican, there would be endless stories about the true unemployment rate, not the fake 9% number that Little Black Jesus and his fellators keep putting out.

Scott had it right - if you have any sense of honor or dignity, you go find a job - ANY JOB - and do your damndest to keep your head above water, with your eye open for any chance of advancement.

But since the truly poisonous mentality of the New Deal / Great Society took hold - that we have a right to stop working at 65, that we should be allowed to spend the next 20-30 years "finding" ourselves, with expenses paid by a pension and Social Security, that the government will always take care of us in extremis - that, as Billy Hollis wrote, we have been assured since the 1930s that we have the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to a soft life - such concepts as shame and dignity are now considered a sucker's game.

I can remember that, even as late as the 1970s, many families would rather go hungry than shame themselves by using food stamps. Now, if you don't have a WIC card all filled up by Uncle Sugar, you're the sucker.

"Thinking about the way that Gingrich delivers his message, I think that he makes a far better attack dog than he would a President."

Yes.

I've altered my opinion of Gingrich somewhat, mostly due to an acquaintance who has had some personal dealings with Newt and insists he's not the dilettante I took him for (though whenever I remember his fascination with the Tofflers, I start drifting back to my original take.)

However, the contrast to Reagan is telling. Ronaldus Magnus may have been a wonderful, skilled extemporaneous speaker, as the notecard anecdote illustrates, but in no way was he an idea-a-minute factory; he never lost sight of the One or Two Big Ideas that needed to be pushed (in his case particularly, winning the cold war.)

Ah yes, the selective faux-rage of the leftards. It's right there on display. I'd love to see her cringe-worthy reaction for her to get out of her ivory tower to mingle with the OWS little people and have her think, "Wow, you guys really do need a bath."

If I was single, I'd say I'd fuck her into senselessness, but frankly, I don't need to fuck her, the rest writes itself.

However, the contrast to Reagan is telling. Ronaldus Magnus may have been a wonderful, skilled extemporaneous speaker, as the notecard anecdote illustrates, but in no way was he an idea-a-minute factory; he never lost sight of the One or Two Big Ideas that needed to be pushed (in his case particularly, winning the cold war.)

I agree. One of the things that I would worry about with a President Gingrich is his idea-a-minute way of operating. I don't think that we need someone like that in the White House, but rather, someone who can diligently attack the morass that was left him by his predecessors (and, esp., but not exclusively, President Obama and the 111th Congress). I don't think that Gingrich has that in him.